[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E9B219.7090500@hpe.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:20:57 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
<xfs@....sgi.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] percpu_counter: Allow falling back to global
counter on large system
On 03/07/2016 01:24 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> This patch provides a mechanism to selectively degenerate per-cpu
>> counters to global counters at per-cpu counter initialization time. The
>> following new API is added:
>>
>> percpu_counter_set_limit(struct percpu_counter *fbc,
>> u32 percpu_limit)
>>
>> The function should be called after percpu_counter_set(). It will
>> compare the total limit (nr_cpu * percpu_limit) against the current
>> counter value. If the limit is not smaller, it will disable per-cpu
>> counter and use only the global counter instead. At run time, when
>> the counter value grows past the total limit, per-cpu counter will
>> be enabled again.
> Hmmm... That is requiring manual setting of a limit. Would it not be
> possible to completely automatize the switch over? F.e. one could
> keep a cpumask of processors that use the per cpu counters.
>
> Then in the fastpath if the current cpu is a member increment the per cpu
> counter. If not do the spinlock thing. If there is contention add the
> cpu to the cpumask and use the per cpu counters. Thus automatically
> scaling for the processors on which frequent increments are operating.
>
> Then regularly (once per minute or so) degenerate the counter by folding
> the per cpu diffs into the global count and zapping the cpumask.
>
> If the cpumask is empty you can use the global count. Otherwise you just
> need to add up the counters of the cpus set in the cpumask.
>
I have modified the patch to try that out. However, that doesn't yield
that much of improvement in term of performance and it slows down the
percpu fast path a bit. So I am going to focus on my existing patch
first and think about that later.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists